Join Ed and Allahpundit on Facebook!
GreenRoom
- On Memorial Day, MSNBC talking head ‘uncomfortable’ calling fallen military ‘heroes’
- President Forrest Gump
- America: Her finest hour is yet to come
- Pizza chain delivers pies deliberately late to raise money to fight world hunger
- Ron Paul revolution is well beyond the fringe
- Miami police shoot and kill naked man chewing on another’s face
- Thomas Friedman: ‘Barack Obama is worst president I’ve ever seen’
- Chris Matthews tired of being asked if he still feels ‘thrill up his leg’
- Feds forced to release list of words used to monitor online speech
- The enduring legacy of Elizabeth Warren’s tribal roots
Hot Links
|
|
Feeds
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The time has come for “To Catch A Predator: UN edition.”
MB007 on July 10, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Hey, killing your wife is okay in other countries. So lay off if I put a bullet in her head. Be multicultural.
MadisonConservative on July 10, 2008 at 9:04 PM
Marrying nine year olds is OK in Muslim countries, too.
jgapinoy on July 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM
sick bastard. got to get myself a gun
custer on July 10, 2008 at 9:08 PM
I’ll submit the obligatory Sir Charles Napier quote:
Sir Charles Napier, a British general in India, when local Hindus complained of a prohibition on suttee. “You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: When men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
trubble on July 10, 2008 at 9:09 PM
It’s the ‘laws are silly’ defense. He’ll have a good long spell to research his appeal further.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 9:10 PM
This says a lot about the State Dept that this kind of guy got to be a diplomat.
trubble, that is a great quote!
INC on July 10, 2008 at 9:18 PM
a. Dude, you’re being tried in an American court. The culture of another country doesn’t apply.
b. Even if the country you were in encourages sex between adult men and teenage girls, they don’t encourage taping the encounters.
c. You’re argument is that this fosters financial security by enabling the girls to have financial security through marriage. How many of the teenage girls you had sex with did you marry?
cs89 on July 10, 2008 at 9:19 PM
How about the UN move a court room smack dab in the
congo,and proceed from there to the hanging tree!
Wait a tick,what am I thinking,the guilty will just
bribe the judge,or prosecuter!
canopfor on July 10, 2008 at 9:23 PM
If he was a child raping pervert in Brazil and the Congo, why would he stop being one in the U.S.?
Helloyawl on July 10, 2008 at 9:28 PM
The hell with sex tourism, join the
UNState Department.Bastard.
Maquis on July 10, 2008 at 9:32 PM
Here’s the difference between the pervs who work for us and those who work for other countries: when caught and proven guilty, ours will go to prison.
baldilocks on July 10, 2008 at 9:39 PM
If this is out-of-bounds, Ed, just ZAP it. Just came across this dark op-ed at the Jerusalem Post…
Well worth reading both pages of this piece. It’s not the usual ‘chest-thumping’ fare. Gave me the willys.
No Repeat of Osirak
I think we need to get ready to hold onto our hats.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Did I miss it or where is this guy from?
Big John on July 10, 2008 at 9:41 PM
I have GOT to put that on a plaque…
oldleprechaun on July 10, 2008 at 9:44 PM
….and being a responsible ADULT is considered an option.
Chimp 6 on July 10, 2008 at 9:47 PM
Why are we worried about putting our Western values on those people? They don’t want to hurt us. We should understand them, but leave them alone.
SouthernGent on July 10, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM
Interesting.
And, one of the (few) reasons I’ll vote for McCain is that Obama will probably respond with something more than a diplomatic protest if Israel does and Osirak-style attack during his administration. And, of course Obama will do next to nothing to prevent an Iran-Isreali facedown over nukes becoming necessary.
cs89 on July 10, 2008 at 9:54 PM
As if the child rape isn’t enough, this a**clown decides to produce child rape pron under the guise of what, a friggin’ documentary??!! Send him off to his date with the Health Inspector already, along with a hearty “Eff-You” to the Supreme Court.
Kid from Brooklyn on July 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM
My original link sends everyone to page two instead of page one. Sorry.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 9:59 PM
Fixed it.
Kid from Brooklyn on July 10, 2008 at 10:00 PM
This is sarcasm, right? You are aware that this was an American official?
cs89 on July 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM
No repeat of Osirak
Limerick on July 10,2008 at 9:40PM.
Limerick: I’ve read it,thanks!Sh!t will hit the fan soon!
Heres a video:History-Israeli Airstrike on Iraqs
Nuclear reactor(1981),44 mins!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svzzrvN92Pg&feature=related
canopfor on July 10, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Don’t bother. It didn’t work in British India and it wouldn’t work in multicultural America even if it were permitted (which it isn’t).
aengus on July 10, 2008 at 10:21 PM
Is anyone shocked by this, seriously?
You can find whole great swaths in Academia justifying that sort of attitude, and the press as well. As long as the guy’s politics are “correct” aka hard-left, anything of that sort is viewed through rose-colored glasses.
whiskey_199 on July 10, 2008 at 10:30 PM
We have the supremes to thank for trying to mix international law in with our Anglo-American tradition. Soon almost anything will be acceptable in American courts.
snaggletoothie on July 10, 2008 at 11:16 PM
As always, I say hang him high in the public square.
Mrs. Happy Housewife on July 10, 2008 at 11:19 PM
Yes, of course.
SouthernGent on July 10, 2008 at 11:24 PM
He wouldn’t. That’s why he needs to get the maximum penalty w/out parole! Even that’s not enough in my opinion, once a pedo always a pedo.
4shoes on July 10, 2008 at 11:39 PM
I personally am against Age of Consent being 18, I think it should be at a max 16.
Knowing as many college age guys as I do, I have seen too many issues where girls tell them that they are 18 when they really are 15 or 16.
Before you think I am a perv, remember even John Stossel agrees with me (He is happily married) and watch the idiocy that the politicians partake in when confronted about the double standards and the fact most of it is harmless by most studies.
20/20 on the Age of Consent.
Tim Burton on July 10, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Most studies get the results the designers intended.
snaggletoothie on July 10, 2008 at 11:46 PM
What a freak.
CP on July 10, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Whoa!
Gotta, gotta, gotta(!!!) disagree with you on that. This isn’t about who isn’t, this is about who is. By that I mean it is about keeping AquaLung in check. I’m sure that some 16yo’s THINK they know what they are doing but I’m positive that adult males KNOW what they are doing. It is flat wrong. I’d rather deny the adult to protect those 16yo’s who haven’t a clue what the hell is going on.
Limerick on July 10, 2008 at 11:54 PM
“Excuse me!”
For those who had thought that they had “heard it all”, well unless you have heard this, you haven’t.
A special meeting about Dallas County traffic tickets turned tense and bizarre this afternoon.
County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections “has become a black hole” because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud “Excuse me!” He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a “white hole.”
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
Mayfield shot back that it was a figure of speech and a science term. {Source: DallasNews.com}
- HT: PoliPundit
MB4 on July 10, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Talk of the town here in DFW. Dallas (sorry Dallas-citz) has gone the route of community-organizer bafoonery. Fort Worth holds the line. We wonder how long it will last.
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 12:01 AM
Snaggle,
Even then the class I taught last year had 7 girls drop out who were pregnant. This isn’t including the other 3 who stayed in school. Everyone of them was 14 when they were pregnant.
It is known by age 16 40% of girls are sexually active. I am not encouraging it, but it is a travesty of justice for a guy even in his late 20s to get in trouble for dating a girl and ultimately having sex.
After all, there are cases where people lie about their age. I dated a 26 year old when I was 17 by lying about my age, I pulled it off until I went back to school and she realized I was a Senior in HS.
That isn’t to mention the numerous guys who are over 18 who go to jail for having sex with someone under the age of “consent”, especially considering the girl initiated it.
And yet, we as society have so many people joke about “I wish that was my teacher when I was in HS.” Sure they got charged, but outside of teachers it is pretty rare to have a chick get busted for having sex with a teen guy. Even then it rarely results in hard time.
Worse is the travesty of injustice that occurs by forcing that person to be put on the “Molester list”. They aren’t child molesters.
Watch Stossel make those who say otherwise sound like fools. There is no reason to punish these people for life. Fine, if we want the age of consent to be 18 but a 16 year old seduces a guy, make it a misdemeanor with no jail time and a small fine.
Should this guy be fired? Absolutely! Should he go to jail? No, it wasn’t rape, rape fantasy maybe, but not rape. Huge difference between having sex with someone young who wants sex and someone who is raping a person.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Well, what about the numerous times that a girl/guy lies about her/his age to someone over the age of consent? Happens more than you think.
Why ruin a person’s life for something that, while unwise, is definitely consensual? Isn’t it the parents role to control the issue and not the State’s?
What about driving? After all, if someone is mature enough to drive, which can kill someone and can be just, if not more destructive, shouldn’t they be mature enough to make that choice?
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Can’t go with ya Mr Burton. Not even by a month.
Limerick on July 11, 2008 at 12:17 AM
A responsible adult should know their partner(s) well enough to be sure that they are also adult before engaging in sexual activity.
And that’s even if we ignore the article’s ambiguity about age (14-17), child (teen) porn aspect, and abuse of his diplomatic privileges.
cs89 on July 11, 2008 at 12:26 AM
T.B. What I hear you saying is that people shouldn’t be held responsible for their own behavior. Just can’t go down that road with you, even if Stossel turns his star power on me.
snaggletoothie on July 11, 2008 at 12:27 AM
So one group should be held accountable, but many other groups not? Parents shouldn’t be held accountable for letting their kids do what they please? Teens shouldn’t be held to account for their choices either? Teens can be held to account for their choices in driving, but not sex? Get real, that is irrational.
The fact is that presently about 2/3s of states have either 16 or 17 as their Age of Consent, but some put it at 18. Most of the major news making under-age sex is prosecuted at the AoC being 18.
Why should we life-time punish someone for what is legal in a majority of States?
Here is an even more tricky question: Presently a number of States have cases where a boy who was 16 or even 17 had sex with a girl who was 15 or even 16 and was charged with statutory rape. Why are the girls not charged at the same time?
It is just like presently there are adults in jail for “child porn” when the “child porn” was a 17 year old girl who photographed herself and unsolicited sent the photo to the guy.
I will tell you that guy would go to jail, even if he deleted it the minute he found it. Nothing would happen to her.
In fact, right now we have a case where a girl filmed child porn and distributed child pornography to other children and she is only being charged with a misdemeanor.
I guaranty you if she would be charged as an adult and risk going to jail and then be on the sex offenders list for life, the attitude would change.
Before you think I am some sort of perv wanting little girls, even as late as last April, I was pro-Age of Consent being 18.
I just started realizing the double standards (which is unjust) and the complete confusion the standards are with regards to the Age of Consent. I am not saying we should have 11 year olds being able to consent, but anything above 16 makes zero sense and causes contradictions in requiring mature choices in something as dangerous as driving while telling them they are not mature enough to chose in another area that can harm a person’s life forever.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Crap I forgot the link for this statement:
I disagree with the conclusion of the blogger. Let the parents hash it out. After all, is it about individual freedom or does it really take a village?
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 12:57 AM
T.B Yes, we have different laws and enforcement for minors than adults. Some study of developmental psychology will lead you to the explanations for this.
snaggletoothie on July 11, 2008 at 1:01 AM
Code Pink…. paging Code Pink…..
NOW…. paging NOW…..
{crickets}
Kini on July 11, 2008 at 1:28 AM
Let’s look at this from another angle, shall we?
While the consequences are different, a clerk in a store selling alcohol has an obligation to card-check anyone appearing to be anywhere close to underage. Is it your contention that there is less obligation to ensure legal age for sexual activity than to purchase a 6-pack of Bud? You know, kids lie about their age all the time to purchase alcohol, but no smart clerk will take their word for it.
cs89 on July 11, 2008 at 1:49 AM
I thought marriage was the sentence… (Oops. Did I just type that out loud?)
Kidding. Mrs. Scarlet and I have been married almost 15 years together. 8 of them happily… (Oops. Did I just… never mind.)
Captain Scarlet on July 11, 2008 at 1:54 AM
To be clear, in my last post I’m talking about one’s responsibility to know your partner, not advocating card-checks at the local Lover’s Lane or whatever.
I reread that and didn’t like what I wrote. Although I guess it could be funny in a way…. “yep, you’re both 18. Sorry to bother you.”
cs89 on July 11, 2008 at 2:08 AM
Never mind the State Department and its amateur pornographers. It seems to deserve the Americans’ attention that, like so many other peoples of the world, the Congolese are running rings around the Americans and Europeans in matters of reproduction. Despite having a life expectancy estimated at 48 years, the Congolese have total fertility of 6.3. Given their short lives, it seems that many Congolese women must have concluded their series of births before the women of the American Northeast (especially) can bring themselves to give birth to their first child. Moreover, in contrast to the fruitful Congolese, the Americans of European descent can’t even be bothered to replace their numbers.
I’ll grant that in regard to motherhood, the Congolese may have made too much of a good thing. Nor is it my purpose to defend the State Department’s Johnny Ampleseed, who seems to have been merely a salaried sex tourist with a video camera. However, it does seem good for the Americans to consider whether they’ve gone to the opposite extreme. I’m going to suggest that the level of anger at The Dicklomat is evidence that they have. When a country has come to treat the onset of a woman’s fertility as just the start of a ten- or twenty-year countdown to her first child, and when they call it child rape to have relations with a woman with full breasts and a fertile womb, is that really not even the least bit pervy?
Kralizec on July 11, 2008 at 2:12 AM
I agree, but let’s face it not everyone is responsible 100% of the time. While I am not advocating a social net to save everyone, I am saying it is wrong to make felons out of them.
About your 2nd paragraph, did you actually bother to read my post at 12:05? I said fire him, but he doesn’t deserve jail for it. He didn’t rape them, he acted unethical but that doesn’t mean he deserves to have his life destroyed over it. Presently, an alcoholic who kills a person driving drunk gets less years than he is up for.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 4:12 AM
Fair enough, but even then we do not ruin the clerks life by putting him in jail (it is normally just a fine) and then forcing him to go on a sexual predator list that haunts him every day of his life.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 4:15 AM
snaggle,
That is all fine and good, and don’t talk down on me.
I will repeat the point: Many states have laws that say the Age of Consent is 16, but others say it is 18. Why should we absolutely, totally, and thoroughly destroy a person’s life for something that legal in 31 states and DC?
If Age of Consent is so absolute, then why is it that literally 2/3 of the states have it placed at younger than 18 (meaning at 14, 15, 16 or 17; which is more reasonable knowing teenager’s behavior), why ruin a person’s life for that non-predatory act?
Why if we believe in equality do we have 12 states that have different Age of Consents for males and females. Literally it is legal for a 15 year old boy to have anal sex with a 55 year old man, but it is illegal for a 16 year old girl to have sex with a 19 year old. It is inconsistent.
No one has dared to answer the following questions:
1. Why is it is that Age of Consent laws over-whelmingly punish males? Here is an example. Ricky who was 16 had sex with a girl who claimed she was 16 also. She was 13, she had lied. You may say, “Well, he was older he should have known better.” It isn’t that simple, in CA it is illegal to have sex under the age of 18. So why was the guy charged with a crime as an adult, but the girl not? She was just as guilty.
2. How can someone be expected to be mature enough to know how to drive a car which can kill someone, but not be mature enough to know they are consenting to sex?
3. Why do we believe that the State needs to step in and hold the adult (or many times a male teen of the same age as the “victim”) responsible, when we do not have the parents held responsible? For so many who claim to be Conservatives and wanting people to take responsibility, we sure don’t require it of parents in seeing who their children are dating and their activities when they are dating.
4. We are charging guys (some in their late teens and early 20s) with possessing child pornography, for receiving a photo they did not request nor solicited. Yet the girls are not being charged with a crime. Here is a case where the girl took the photo herself, is not being charged with child porn, but the police are threatening anyone with the image a couple days later will be charged with possessing child porn. Why is the double standard acceptable between males and females?
5. Why should this guy’s life be ruined for 10 years? What about this guy, who was found not guilty of rape (at the age of 17), but was convicted of statutory rape and served 10 years. What his behavior immoral? Absolutely, but why should we punish him for consensual choice that the girl regretted later?
6. How can we justify spending tax dollars and limited court time on “sexual predators” that many times are seduced by the teenagers themselves, after all American Pie praised the fact that one of the high school teens seduced “Stifler’s Mom”, especially in light of major crime occuring?
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 5:13 AM
snaggle,
That is all fine and good, and don’t talk down on me.
I will repeat the point: Many states have laws that say the Age of Consent is 16, but others say it is 18. Why should we absolutely, totally, and thoroughly destroy a person’s life for something that legal in 31 states and DC?
If Age of Consent is so absolute, then why is it that literally 2/3 of the states have it placed at younger than 18 (meaning at 14, 15, 16 or 17; which is more reasonable knowing teenager’s behavior), why ruin a person’s life for that non-predatory act?
Why if we believe in equality do we have 12 states that have different Age of Consents for males and females. Literally it is legal for a 15 year old boy to have anal sex with a 55 year old man, but it is illegal for a 16 year old girl to have sex with a 19 year old. It is inconsistent.
No one has dared to answer the following questions:
1. Why is it is that Age of Consent laws over-whelmingly punish males? Here is an example. Ricky who was 16 had sex with a girl who claimed she was 16 also. She was 13, she had lied. You may say, “Well, he was older he should have known better.” It isn’t that simple, in CA it is illegal to have sex under the age of 18. So why was the guy charged with a crime as an adult, but the girl not? She was just as guilty.
2. How can someone be expected to be mature enough to know how to drive a car which can kill someone, but not be mature enough to know they are consenting to sex?
3. Why do we believe that the State needs to step in and hold the adult (or many times a male teen of the same age as the “victim”) responsible, when we do not have the parents held responsible? For so many who claim to be Conservatives and wanting people to take responsibility, we sure don’t require it of parents in seeing who their children are dating and their activities when they are dating.
4. We are charging guys (some in their late teens and early 20s) with possessing child pornography, for receiving a photo they did not request nor solicited. Yet the girls are not being charged with a crime. Here is a case where the girl took the photo herself, is not being charged with child porn, but the police are threatening anyone with the image a couple days later will be charged with possessing child porn. Why is the double standard acceptable between males and females?
5. Why should this guy’s life be ruined for 10 years? What about this guy, who was found not guilty of rape (at the age of 17), but was convicted of statutory rape and served 10 years. What his behavior immoral? Absolutely, but why should we punish him for consensual choice that the girl regretted later?
6. How can we justify spending tax dollars and limited court time on “sexual predators” that many times are seduced by the teenagers themselves, after all American Pie praised the fact that one of the high school teens seduced “Stifler’s Mom”, especially in light of major crime occuring?
.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 5:19 AM
An 18yr old boy who has sex with his 17yr old girlfriend is not a sexual predator, though he will be saddled with that his whole life if they are caught. Anyone out there think this boy should be labeled a sex criminal for life?
If you want, I can give examples of this exact circumstance. I did it, but lucky for me, at that time, it wasn’t considered criminal.
Squiggy on July 11, 2008 at 6:33 AM
I see you’re using the seal of the Obama again.
drjohn on July 11, 2008 at 7:01 AM
I have managed business’ where I employed 16 year old girls and have 5 nieces between the age of 14 and 24. 16 year old girls are just that, little girls. Just because 16 year old boys want to take advantage of them isn’t a reason to make them bait for adult men also.
You are a pervert, pal.
peacenprosperity on July 11, 2008 at 7:13 AM
You’ve gotta be kidding me. Advocating for a policy position does not make someone a pervert.
The problem with your construction is that 16 year old girls are NOT “little girls”. Nor are they adults. If you think a 16 year old girl isn’t capable of sexual machinations, you’re kidding yourself.
For the record, I don’t think a grown man having sex with a teenage girl is right. But I do think the law needs to be able to distinguish between that, and something like forcible rape, or the molestation of a pre-adolescent.
Farmer_Joe on July 11, 2008 at 7:51 AM
What they are “capable” of is one thing, what someone else does with them is something totally different. I guess a guy who sleeps with a 15 year old girl isn’t totally responsible for his actions? There is no right and wrong anymore?
16 year olds are children no matter how they look. Homosexuals and pedophiles push for lower age of consent. Failed parents cry about misunderstood boys. Perverts claim young girls seduced them.
peacenprosperity on July 11, 2008 at 8:01 AM
.
Now this is multi-culturalism that I can respect!
.
Hang the five Supreme Court justices who conspire with child rapists in the US, for good measure. If congress were sane, they would impeach the 5-member NAMBLA court.
Right_of_Attila on July 11, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Dude! You’re thinking way too small. Move the UN lock stock and barrel into the Congo.
highhopes on July 11, 2008 at 9:06 AM
Beautiful,.. just beautiful..
DaveC on July 11, 2008 at 9:12 AM
not touching Tim Burton’s post with a ten foot pole..
DaveC on July 11, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Ah, okay. I see where you’re coming from. Never mind.
Farmer_Joe on July 11, 2008 at 9:21 AM
Damn those oversexed Brazilian and Congo girls! No one could resist their tantalizing ways! Not even a decent diplomat like Mr. Nachman.
RMR on July 11, 2008 at 9:55 AM
We have some religions in this country that defend that practice.
If you ask NAMBLA, they will say they are giving the young boys “love” that they are seeking.
There is always an excuse for sexual deviancy…the perpetrator is always “helping”, or always has a higher moral authority.
right2bright on July 11, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Bingo. And for the record the girl I am presently dating is older than me.
As I said earlier, in most states the Age of Consent is 16, but in a few it is 18. When someone has sex with a 17 year old, they end up on the sex offenders list for the rest of their lives. It literally ruin’s lives.
It not only ruins guys lives in their 20′s, but it ruins their lives in their teens.
My big post never got posted, but here is a case where a 16 year old had sex with a 13 year old who lied about her age and said she was 16. After dating for a few months, they had sex consensually. Where is the crime?
Here are the issues with having the Age of Consent being 18:
1. It is selectively enforced and punished. Women are less-likely to be charged and have tend to have a lower punishment than men who sleep with the same age differences.
2. For teens, both under-age, have sex it is generally the boy who is charged and not the girl, it is unjust.
3. If we can accept a teen driving at 16, with all the associated risks of killing people, then we should accept they can make the choice with all the associated risks of sex.
4. There is no reason for us to have a Nanny State (which in virtually any other “comfortable” case we would be decrying), when we should be having parents be responsible for who their child dates and what they are doing when they date.
5. The Age of Consent laws are not keeping teens from having sex, it is just making criminals out of meaningful relationships.
6. We should not be wasting limited law enforcement time and effort to punish something that is consensual. No one would argue that we should charge a guy with rape who has sex with a girl who was drunk, who regrets it the next morning. Why give that exception to a teen who actively chooses to have sex and then regrets it.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 2:51 PM
We are not talking about NAMBLA. As I said in the “lost” post.
In Colorado the Age of Consent is 15 for boys and 17 for girls. Now, let me explain that to you. It is legal for a 15 year old boy to have anal sex with a 55 year old man, but it is against the law for a 16 year old girl to have sex with her 19 year old fiance.
We are talking about not ruining a guy’s live for having sex with a 16 year old or 17 year old who consents of free will.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 2:55 PM
I, unlike NAMBLA, is not pushing for it lower than it is in most states, which is 16. I just do not think that an 18 year old should go to jail for having sex with a 17 year old.
Even then, I do not think we should criminalize two consenting people and have one’s life ruined.
For teachers, we have professional licenses, which would/should be revoked for having sex with someone attending their school as being unprofessional behavior.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Except where I said that it is unjust to ruin someones life for two people freely consenting, I do not believe it is the moral choice to have random sex with a minor. I am saying we should not ruin someones life over it. We should not waste valuable law enforcement time shoving these people in jail, when there are real criminals truly harming people and private property.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 3:11 PM
If you don’t think that at least some of those girls are having sex then you’d be a fool. I dare you to ask some of those girls to pull up their Myspace or Facebook picture galleries and take a look.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 4:13 PM
I understand. My comment was intended to be an acknowledgement of the futility of arguing with peacenprosperity (or anyone who immediately equates “homosexuals” with “pedophiles”.)
Farmer_Joe on July 11, 2008 at 4:45 PM
Nachman claims to be a big stick in nudism:
Well, you know what I mean….
drjohn on July 11, 2008 at 5:18 PM
I also see a huge difference between two teens or one teen and one person over 18 having sex and a pre-pubescent child being molested by a pedophile.
Just look at the perv comments and implication in people’s posts that I want sex with teens.
Tim Burton on July 11, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Try reading a website like MensNewsDaily. You’ll find out how wrong you are. Prosecutors around the country are bringing charges on guys for just that – sometimes days later after her hangover is long gone, and she’s feeling ashamed of her actions. And she’ll get lots of help from “women’s organizations”, while the man gets roundly condemned from every side.
That’s what a lot of these comments here are like. Poor little girl, evil man (even if he’s a boy). And today, the “little girl” is just as likely to initiate sex as is the boy. Go to You Tube, you’ll see. We’ve raised a generation of sluts.
Some of the guys here mean well, but they are missing the biggest point – teenage girls may be called “girls”, but throughout 99% of human history, they were called “wives” (and mothers). And teenage boys had been called husbands (and fathers). And yet we don’t consider them adults today.
Squiggy on July 12, 2008 at 6:42 AM